Nihilism and Schizophrenia

No. And this does not follow. Lucidity is your objective you say?

You have expressed needs, I haven’t. I just try to put your needs into a context where they could possibly be fulfilled - i.e. reality.
Humanity evolved from a healthy animal. I prefer the healthy animal to the decaying human, but not to the healthy human.

I’ve said no such thing. I wonder why you would imagine that. Is it that you think consciousness is necessarily rational? Or that instincts are excluded from consciousness? Or if by consciousness you mean rationality, that rationality is opposed to instinct, instead of flowing from it?

Then you have ever so slightly changed your position since you wrote the OP:

and the ideal is the desirable replacement, the hypothetical “correction” of the world as it is.
I propose enlightenment to be this surpassing of this primary reaction…towards self-acceptance.

A good example of what I mean: your instincts (faced with the choice of to fight, adapt or retreat) commanding your reason.

I’ve just told you something about the general aims of a certain ruling class. Nothing about my own.

I’ve seen you do that, yes. It’s good to see this kind of involvement.

Link me to where I say perfection is even possible…as my position is the opposite.
I describe a trend, popular amongst naive idealists that try to escape reality by positing some utopia where peace reigns and suffering is ended.

It is this trend which I call stunting, or a form of intellectual retardation…akin to domestication, institutionalization…at its heart it is nihilistic…as the attainment of this idealized state would mean the end of existence.

Thant God for quotations.

I believe your response to my query was “yes”…then you realized what a mistake you had made.

Not “necessarily”, as many humans and animals prove…but a prerequisite.

Yes, harnessing your energies.

No, as other people’s schizophrenia is not a problem for me.

Meaning that whomever thinks the ideal state is possible, or useful in any other way other than as a direction that defines a consciuosness is a naive idealistic child.


I like to sit on the floor sometimes and play with my cat. It’s fun. It’s another way of being, of being active. But I don’t think of it as a need. There must be moments when we exist on a plane where there is no need, when activity is simply for the sheer purpose (purpose - which I don’t feel is need either) of being. If one simply sits on a chair and thinks, not idle thoughts, but in an otherwise idle way, that is also not a need in itself. It is simply a way of being.

Why is it that you need to see everything as a need? Have you never felt a moment when there was no need within you? Sure we can be very needy human beings, grasping at life, at very many things which we think will bring us happiness or which we think will assuage our unhappiness, our terror, our confusion. But there are times when our existence is plentiful, and times when they are far less than plentiful, but still, there are those moments when all we could ever really ask for is absolutely nothing, because we have no need of anything. We are free in our being.

Thank you


Everything is driven by need. The fact that you don’t see it as need is just your confusion. To say no need is to be part of the mindless herd comforting themselves and hiding from the cold harsh reality of a pitiless universe. You pet your cat and say you don’t need to, but you do need it - to reinforce your comforting illusion that life isn’t a struggle with death. As a woman you obviously are clouded in emotion and haven’t the clarity of vision of a man.

:laughing: Okay, Tent, I do see that much is driven by need but not all. I never said No Need, just that there are times when there is no need. And YOU can’t see this either??? ](*,)

No, I don’t NEED to pet my cat, Tent, I like to but I don’t call liking a need. If all it took to reinforce our comforting illusions that life isn’t a struggle with death, is to pet a cat, we would all run out and get cats and pet them. :laughing:

I am very well aware that life can be a struggle with death, but for me, I am also learning that life and death are part of the same. I know it sounds clicheish, but really, you can’t have one without the other. There are a great many deaths which we experience throughout our life, and they teach us about that final one. I think the struggle comes more when we are not aware that they are BOTH an inevitable process of each other.

As a woman? ](*,) Yes, Tent, I am a Woman, I am every bit a woman, and quite happy to be, and yes, I can also be clouded in emotion, not because I am a woman but simply because I am a human being. Hell, even a male species of an animal can be clouded in emotion, as can every single man within the universe. I don’t know who it was who started the ridiculous rumor that only women are emotional animals, Tent. That is so absurd!

We are all individuals, Tent. My vision or the clarity of my vision is not lessened because I am a woman - it is not dependent on my being a man. Men certainly have no monopoly on clarity of vision, as I have so often witnessed in my own life, you can trust me on this. My clarity of vision depends on my brain, my mind, spirit, perceptions, thoughts, self-reflections, taking a really harsh honest look into myself, pondering the universe, coffee :unamused: and yes, even at times my emotions. Emotions are not a negative, Tent, they are what, after all, make us human, coupled with our reason of course. Women have both reason, logic and emotions. Perhaps it was some silly, insecure man who started the ridiculous rumor in ancient times that women are purely emotional creatures incapable of clarity of vision.

Tell me, Tent, just how much clarity of vision does it take, do you think, to conjure up the notion that women are lacking simply because we are women? :laughing: ](*,) Don’t you realize, that just like life and death, men and women are part of the same process, and can be in harmony with one another - only we lack the clarity of vision to see it, to intuit it. What a shame.

Stop projecting Tent.
Thank you for the enlightenment.


That is just the sort of response expected. Continue hiding from yourself and by all means play with the cat. You really aren’t expected to do much else.

Let’s keep this on topic, folks. Everyone here is capable of speaking for him/herself.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

If you could only hear me laughing now. And I will continue to laugh when I sign out of here and go play with little Yoda.

Of course, a few minutes ago, my response to this may have been a bit different. Please don’t think because the dragon is gone, and there is now little marlin and dory, that the dragon is not still within. She is very much there still. [size=200]ROAR[/size]

Then the need is one of activity or boredom requiring relief or communing with nature or whatever.

This is a blatant attempt to ascribe to my positinos a personal motive.

No, have you?
When one need is satiated, another takes its place…because the mind is a tool for meeting needs.

The thing is, when we are in a state of lack, we are active based on our needs with regard to that lack - and at the moment we obtain what we lack we become satiated and overfull, which generates the need for relief, catharsis. Either way, if we are lacking or overfull, it is a “need” which is driving activity.

But, really, so what? There is little philosophical significance in this - all it really means is that a perfect static balance between organism and environment is impossible. That is pretty much a given, what it means to be an organism. We strive for balances constantly even though they can never be realised, because once a specific lack is met and resolved it turns either into nothingness or into overflow, which generates the need for relief and catharsis. Its just an obvious statement about the nature of life, that we can never be in a prefect balance… but when we define both lack and overflow as “need” alone, we cover up the inherent difference between these states.

Yes they are both “need” in the sense that they represent a motivating factor for the organism, but that is merely the natural flow of energy. The organism draws within itself energies from outside in order to make use of them, and then once converted has a surplus of this certain energy, which then needs to be siphoned off. It is a natural process, and nothing truly profound, it is just the way things work, the dynamics of energy flow. And of course each process in the organism tends to serve multiple functions at the same time, especially regarding the psychological processes. So the statements “life is need/lack” or “pleasure/desire is need/lack” are true, but they are also gross simplifications which can tend to cloud over the deeper realities of what is actually going on when we are experiencing pleasure or pain.

If the point here is that the idealistic utopian views of “bliss” and “eternal life” and “stasis” of Buddhism or Christianity or whatever are retarded, then yes, of course these are - but there is little merit in calling the obviously retarded retarded. These ideologies are self-refuting. The beliefs defeat themselves. So there is little sense in positing a philosophical position or grand importance upon the fact that idea such as these are nonsensical.

Life is need and lack, in the sense that the organism is motivated of necessity to seek from its environment energies to draw within itself and convert to positive use. If it succeeds then it has a surplus of this energy, which requires siphoning off. Thus, we get the higher-order desires and psychologies of animals, physiological processes which feed the functions of the psyche, etc. We get redirection, repression, we get basic desire, in essence we get the raw energetic component which fuels the higher processes of consciousness itself… the mind runs off excess of energy, which is subtlizes and converts via splitting and redirection into other functions. The severe efficiency of the human organism’s body allows for the development of the brain, as in all animals - and the even more severe efficiency of this brain allows for excess energy to accumulate which may be used for higher congitive and emotive purposes.

Once again, there is little profundity here. Its just obvious fact. Life is “need” - so what? This statement is true, but as before, a simplification. It is basically doing nothing more than lumping the vast multitude of human passions and activities and behaviors into one group, and calling that group “life”.

Life is need? Well when we truly define need, when we understand what it means to lack, and to fulfil lack, in the sense of energy, we see the nature of the organism… and to confuse the fact that life-action is motivated by “needs” (motivating-necessitating factors) with the idea that there is no such thing as a positive state of being-alive or modes of experience or activity which are positive and affirmative in themselves (i.e. self-directed or purposeful, or obtaining to their own ontological essence, qualia, existence) in nature, is to misunderstand what it means to lack/need.

Basically, the claim that life is need is so tautological that it says almost nothing at all.


  1. How can there be a disconnection from ‘nature’ when everything that exists is what we include in ‘nature’ or ‘reality’? We could only disconnect things which are not natural i.e. real

  2. How can a nihilist even exist? Does not being alive imply valuing things? I do not understand how you can know that someone values nothing or not, you cannot read someone’s mind and observing behavior of someone who is still not dead has to accept that they have values. My understand of valuation is that it is external (i.e. outside what might be called a mind) that is we value our biological, social, environmental functions or objects (what we might dub ‘earthly’).

When someone says they value being in communion with God I do not believe anything other than him trying to explain some natural phenomenon with bad mystical words. Would I call him a nihilist for using bad words to explain to me a natural phenomenon that occurs in a part of his body?

This notion of nihilism seems to be to appear from an interpretation that is not connected with the practical behavior of said person, it looks superfluous from this point of view, just like free-will.

What I mean by it is a disconnection from our own nature.

With human artificial environments - and here artificial merely designates human intervention which usurps preexisting processes - we suppress our instinct, we detach form circadian rhythms, we lose naturally occurring cycles by being forced to adhere o manmade time-tables etc

a nihilist is always partially so or is a quintessential hypocrite and selective thinker…but mostly he is unaware.
For instance the belief in a paradise or some other idealized state, may appear positive…yet it is world-denouncing since in essence it exposes a dissatisfaction with the world, offering an imagined replacement as preferable…and in so doing essentially changing the circumstances that brought the individual about.
It is a form of self-hatred.

And valuing the things that make you obsolete or impossible, is nihilistic.

The nihilist, being dissatisfied with self and everything that brought it about, resents all of it…and proposes an alternative that would constitute him impossible. He values his own demise, as he’s identified with an idea(l) which he places above him.

I consider nihilism the first stage of self-awareness, as growing awareness of the world and one’s place in it, as it has already been determined, leaves the mind dissatisfied.

I held you in quite high esteem. Maybe it was just your reputation. What nonsense is this?

I have to assume now that you think an animal doesn’t harness it’s energies. Again, what nonsense is this?

I will take ‘other people’ here to refer to your other half, who has apparently written the OP.

‘The’ ideal state?
Ideal to whom?

Then you should have realized that your responses would not go unnoticed.
Did you or did you not respond with a “Yes”?

You quoted this part and responded thusly:

Have you changed your mind?
Have I misunderstood your point?
Reason is not the enemy…repressing instincts is. Instincts the animal within, should not be denied but controlled, harnessed, directed.

I will take ‘other people’ here to refer to your other half, who has apparently written the OP.

To the one imagining it, since it is nowhere in evidence and impossible.

The ultimate hypocrite. Anyone claiming a position of true Nihilism is blowing smoke out of his ass, unless his claim immediately precedes suicide. True, existential nihilists do not exist but in graveyards.

Even if one is to believe that all values are superfluous and/or contrived, this does not necessitate a lack of personal investment. Nihilism, like suicide, is a kind of capitulation – at least suicide has a point.

Selective thinking and being willfully unaware is no different than “ignorance”.

Again, seems more like just ignorant to me. Valuing things that make you obsolete or impossible is implying that one sees a meaning or purpose in something, which is not nihilistic at all. Just self-loathing.

Idealistic Nihilism? I doubt I could think of a more self contradictory concept if I tried. Again, a belief in an objective meaning or purpose to life (as nature essentially is life) is not nihilistic. You’ve implied value, meaning, and purpose in this statement – all of which are characteristics of anything but nihilism.

Dissatisfaction is a key motivator; no?

If one is so easily broken by this idea of dissatisfaction, I’d say he has no business dabbling in philosophy.

Well said.

Also, how has a distinction between “need” and “desire” not been drawn here?

I think what you are getting at here is more a mode of utter dehumanization (eg. something matters, but not us). To reduce the mind to nothing more than a tool for meeting needs is to - at once - recognize and dismiss the intrinsic value and beauty of its complexity.

Just as easily as you seem to describe everything in terms of “need”, I will bet that anything could be described in terms of “avoidance”. Overly generalized rhetoric that, as Last Man said, seems to rob your statements of any real profundity.

The reasoning is selective in the sense that the nihilist despises existence as it is, but does not want to give up the product of this existence as it is: his consciousness and his life.
We see this in Christianity where one dies, but still lives, in some “higher plain”…or in eastern philosophies where the highest state is self-contradictory: unconscious consciousness…this after the world is denounced either as an illusion, a mustering point for the ascent into a more ‘real’ reality or a state all should seek not to be reborn into or simply as an ambiguous emptiness.
The absolute void.

In all cases the conditions that make consciousness possible, even necessary as a survival tool, are dismissed or deemed negative, whereas consciousness itself is preserved by making it some higher state or a transcendental thing.
The seed of schizophrenia is planted, and under the right circumstances it can grow and flourish.

It’s the kind of reasoning that eventually results in a paradox or the need to turn the tables on reality, making it a farce, whereas the mind that is produced through the processes of this world, is made into something mystical…detached form reality: a God or some higher state or an ambiguity.

In fact without dissatisfaction there would be no activity and no creativity. Life would be superfluous.

This is more a hope.
Beauty is a matter of perspective and for me it is the attraction of the inferior to what is superior, in symmetry of mind and body.
An attraction of the weak to the strong to use Nietzsche’s narrative.

Complexity is no argument against what I said.
A worm is complex and yet it is a self-sustaining biological mechanism that can be known by studying its appearance(activity being the apparent) and behavior. Differentiating humanity from other creatures based on the complexity of his mind is, at the very least, self-serving.
The mind is a survival tool…that it has proven to be a dominant one is another issue and that this eventually leads to a level of self-consciousness that becomes self-destructive…is what nihilism is all about.
The gradual detachment of the mind from its survival duties, due to its dominance, producing excess and decadence, mirrors the course of systemic ascent and decline, as the organism is a kind of mini-system.

If consciousness is not a survival tools then why does it evolve at all…and why does it establish itself despite the unwelcoming conditions?
Any alternative hypothesis is welcomed.

By the way ‘avoidance’ is the need to self-preserve.
Flight and fight…flight being avoidance.
One does not avoid just to avoid.

It is always typical that the old standbys of “rhetoric” and “generalization” are dusted off and presented, once more, as new…Next bigotry, sexism, racism and my personal psychology might be evoked.
It is particularly funny, in reference to the “generalization” remark, considering my positions on abstractions and projections.

I would ask for one, ONE, example of a non-generalization, but why bother?
I’ve been down this road about a hundred times before. Let’s just assume, since you first brought it up, that my generalizations are more general than yours.
In fact I would accept this, given that more complex minds manage to perceive patterns in what another fails to, and in what a simpler mind calls chaotic…or too complex to make sense of, and can come to conclusions, using these generalizing, simplifying, abstractions, which leaves the average mind baffled.
I would say that some minds can see patterns that generalize animal behavior that another mind can’t make heads or tails of and may cause this other mind to taunt the first that he is seeing too much into what it thinks is too complex.

In fact pattern recognition is used in I.Q. tests.

I would bring up Bonini’s Paradox which expresses best this simplifying methodology of the mind which, to divert the topic, turns the complexity of an entire history of (inter)activity - Becoming - into a few simple characteristics such as form, color, texture, mass, tone, smell etc.
All of empiricism is based on generalizations, all of science is the methodology of simplification, or finding a simple algorithm to explain complex processes, (patterns in the chaos of interactivity) such as the Mandelbrot Set or M-Theory, but never-mind, we’ll be here forever if we get into this.
Suffice is to say that a man perceives behavioral patterns in a few specimens and then generalizes the nature of an entire species or category or type.

Nevertheless, and after a brief pompous break, my position is that Need, with its extreme of suffering, are the conscious interpretations of the Flux, or temporality, or entropy…or activity…or existence.
Since we are product of reality we can safely assume that we mirror its processes…and so need reflects, or is the conscious interpretation, of a lack…and this lack, I have concluded is the absence of an absolute state: the absence of God, perfection, omnipotence, omniscience, something, nothing, completion, here, now, self, order…or the many other words we use to describe the very same THING.

In my view our language is full of unnecessary words that describe the same concept with a slightly different nuance, usually psychological, to it.
For instance the duality of some-thing and no-thing are really tautologies, only differing in their attitude towards what is taken as self-evident: the THING.
In the case on no-thing, the absolute and ambiguous thing, ambiguously described as ‘some’ is presupposed so as to negate it absolutely.

Same goes in mathematics with the #1.
All of math is founded no the presupposition of the absolute #1…which all other numerical values either add to or negate.
This is the intrinsic flaw in language, math being another language, which reflects the intrinsic flaw, or limitations, in the human mind…or the human method of perceiving and making sense of existence.

The concept of the absolute, the thing, is already presupposed in language, as it reflects human abstractions. In fact all words refer to human mental models, with varying degrees of reference to reality.
When our language is contradicted by reality, that is when static models cannot perfectly define a fluid reality, we get a paradox.

But all that on for some other time.

Yeah? Oh Yeah?! Come at me bro!

Relax man, I was just pointing out that “need” and “desire” are two different concepts. Of course a desire is interpreted as a need, but it is not by definition, nor by mental or physical faculties:

That’s all I’m saying with remarks about your “rhetoric” and “generalization” as it pertains to this discussion. I think you are lumping two different concepts into one idea.

Exactly. My assertion was one of over-generalization, as noted above. I have no problem with generalization as a tool for understanding; I don’t see how we could do without it.

Other than that I agree with much of your reply. However, I still think that this idea of ‘Idealistic Nihilism’ is absurd. But, then again, life is absurd. So have at it.

Nihilism is the ultimate example of philosophy without balls, in my humble opinion. As I said, if dehumanization is your wish, hope, or goal, why not lead by example? Death is scary and life is rough – it is all too natural that people weep, hurt, and “wax indignant” (as Spinoza says) in life, but still fear and cower at the thought of death.

Schizophrenics are not profoundly confused people, riddled with philosophical angst. The brain over-produces dopamine, among other things, resulting in a mental break. This is not much different than a stimulant driven, or sleep deprived, psychosis. The question is not one of an ontological nature, you are talking about a biological chemical imbalance. Any “seeds” that might promote schizophrenic episodes are only fuel to a preexisting fire.


I choose to avoid things all the time, most of which do not constitute a “need”. I avoid talking to certain people at my work, drinking beer every day, being too pessimistic, etc. I avoid out of preference, there is no fight for me to take flight from in these cases. None of the examples I’ve noted were reckless or damaging to my well-being or social life; I just prefer not to live in certain ways. There are, of course, reasons for me to avoid them, as you’ve pointed out. But these are self-justified, my survival is not dependent upon them. Avoidance is simply a desire to keep away from – the catalyst for that desire can be any number of things, ranging from very fundamental needs to the most superficial preferences.


Then maybe you need to redefine need by other standards. There is no compulsion, no strong desire, nothing driving me in such a state of emergency, as to find it necessary to pet my cat. It was a simple flow of thought into very low energy that eased me into pettng my cat. No compulsion/no necessity - an idle action but not one brought on by boredom. Have you ever simply sat and thought idly or did absolutely nothing? Nothing boring or pressing about it. Just a moment where one flows, one exists. That I think is our very essence - esse Being. Decartes said: “I think, therefore, I am.” I don’t think he had it quite right. He could have continued on with that and said * I also at times simply exist, therefore I also am. :laughing:

I wasn’t actually aware that I was doing that, Saytr. Anyway, this is an exchange and couldn’t we say that there is always a personal motive (nothing necessarily negative about that). In other words, for us to see the perspectives of others and for they to see our own? I don’t care how philosophically sound one’s exchanges are, as a human being, we can’t get away from person motive. You were speaking of need and I was disputing your thought that everything is based on need, everything derives from need. Perhaps from the larger biological, psychological, historical perspective it may, but when we get down to individual existence and moments, it doesn’t have to and it doesn’t. That’s just the way I see it.

Sure I have. They’re moments of complete harmony, utter detachment, divorced from everything but a sense of self deep within that inner core.

The mind is also a tool for letting us know when we have had enough, when we have no need - if we pay attention in quietude. Oh, and paying attention in quietude may also Not come from need - but simple self-awareness.

Have you ever floated on your back in a lake or a calm morning ocean? If you don’t struggle and just simply let go, you can simply float there - no conflict, no trying, you just become one with the water…absolutely no need there. Simple essence, being. Once you become aware of need, you will have tendency to sink. :laughing:

The Last Man,

What you seem to be describing above, at least to me, is not schizophrenia, but a growth and evolving process that autonomously (key word here) and with growing awareness, frees one’s desires from the restraints of social norms, from the psychological restrictions that society has placed on us.

Schizophrenia would be more a process that actually slowly erodes and dissolves growing self-consciousness and personality (S-C being what one might call inner or outer awareness) The difference is that, with the one, a being is capable of exercising free will and transcending that conscious breakup of personhood, insofar as they are willing to - and the other (schizophrenia) has no will (no autonomy) and the brain and the personality experience an on-going deleterious breakdown, or entropy, that is due to chemicals in the brain.

Okay. I suppose what you are doing here is maybe making a comparison or as you’ve done before, taken a word or a concept, like masochism or nihilism, and putting a different slant to it, a different flavor or richness, if you will. I don’t know if what you are saying here is that - how to put it - as we are beginning to autonomously (again, key here) experience a breakdown of our old paradigms and examining them, and as they begin to dissolve within us, we can/may begin to experience, in a sense, a somewhat split with reality as we’ve known it, not so much as a schizophrenic would, but we might necessarily sense and feel a dissolution of personality and personhood, which we would actually have to achieve, in order to come to another self. The result of that would be a strong sense of self-consciousness, and a breaking down/breaking away (almost like a breakdown) as our once ingrained societal way of thinking/conditioning, adolescent desires/fantasies/repressions are brought up, struggled with, given up and sacrificed for a more real self and sense of the world. One is done through drugs and the other is done through sheer willpower, courage, honesty, conflict, a fight against inertia, and love of self (positive).

Well, I might say depending on the individual, much or most or some. But yes we all engage in it, make the above, part of us. At some point, perhaps if we are lucky, depending on one’s perspective of lucky, something happens, some catalyst that begins at least to crush that umbilical cord that ties us down and holds us to our selfish, narcissistic, our adolescent needs and we begin that process that might just seem like a schizophrenic break with reality, a splitting into pieces almost of one’s person, and one’s world as they’ve known it.

As can one who has a split of the other type, when all paradigms and reality as have been known, begin to crumble. It takes an enormous amount of strength and endurance to overcome, to transcend, to flow through those waters, and to not completely forget selfhood, though one’s self may be in question and split into pieces. One can also with this type of split with reality, which is not your basic medical schizophrenia - succumb, the brain can also feel like it is becoming unwired, and one’s sense of ethics and morality may fall at the wayside.

Laing also said: “Insanity - a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world.” One might actually agree with him up to a point, insofar as we are influenced by what appears to be real around us though so much is Not.


Madness need not be all breakdown. It may also be break-through. It is potential liberation and renewal as well as enslavement and existential death.”

Yes, sometimes we may not realize it, but bit by bit, some may flow into madness, either consciously or subconsciously because they do begin to see in a more realistic way, the abysmal insanity that is around us, that the other so-called normal and sane people refuse to see – so that becomes the break-through, almost like a rebirth, agonizingly uncomfortable, to say the least, coming down through that madness tunnel into the real world. Real like most everything else in the world is in the eye of the beholder, according to one’s perspective.

The other day I was walking down the street and about half a block away I noticed this little brown sparrow standing so still in the dirt, just looking down the avenue – just as I’ve seen them in the park, still/motionless. It was only when I was almost on top of it, that I realized that it was NOT a sparrow, but a piece of brown wood jutting out of the ground shaped like a sparrow. It didn’t even occur to me to wonder if it could have been anything other than a sparrow - that is how much it seemed to be one. Oh, it was a sparrow. Hahaha. Only it wasn’t. And it reminded me of how sure we are, most often, that what we are looking at is exactly what we think we are looking at. Our brains play tricks us, so anything that sort of resembles our known reality, becomes reality to us, until we’ve taken another look.

Or as I state in my avatar’s location: Standing before that place where illusion is unmasked and truth revealed! :lol: Which is very often the case with us silly earthlings - if we’re lucky.

What is real in this world may simply be what appears to be apparent – but may have no basis in reality, may not show its true essence. A little brown sparrow – what is his essence, a piece of brown wood jutting up from the ground? :laughing:

Normal and sanity is a matter of perspective, isn’t it? What is normal and sane for one - may to another simply be a very boring use of one’s life, a fear to break away from society’s hold and sick repressive tendencies, a fear to transcend so-called virtue and self-righteousness, and break away from the pack. What would have been counted as abnormal and perhaps insane 100 years ago; now, due to cultural changes, fads, technology, laws, etc., for someone who has only just awoken out of a deep sleep after that 100 years, the world might be seen as insane and chaotic, and as a runaway train.

How would you define it given that need reflects the condition on an elemental level?
If the term bothers you, then you should ask yourself why the description which implies that all is weak, with strength being a lower level of weakness, and all is suffering, with pleasure being a lower level of suffering, is so troubling to you.

What about need implies “a state of emergency” or an immediacy?
Suffering, yes, as some needs, what i call the primary ones, are intrinsically linked to survival and when left unsatisfied they can grow and grow in urgency.

For instance my body feeds constantly, there is cosntant need for nourishment, but evolution has evolved a mechanism by which nourishment can be stored - the stomach and digestive system - and the body can pull nutrients from it (other organisms has evolves similar storage units for breathing or hydrating etc.). and so my need is kept so low that my consciousness does not even take account of it, as consciousness has evolved to meet needs and the most pressing take precedence.

Now if I cannot replenish this storage of nutrients my stomach empties and eventually I feel the first pangs of hunger…the first signs of distress. At this level the need is only minimally stressful and urgent, yet in our more sheltered environment that rpevent any expreience with any level of stress above a point and we get used to immediate gratification, this point is never exceeded…producing this reaction to my views, for one.

Then leave this hunger unsatisfied and it becomes more and more pressing becoming more and more suffering.
We can now see that pleasure, that is the satiation of this need, is a negative as it requires an action to return the naturally occurring need down to more manageable levels. Th process repeats continuously.

And this ease is a product of modernity or of forethought or even of power, in relation to your cat.

Then brought on by a combination of needs, one being ennui, another a need to commune with nature to be comforted after a stressful day for companionship a parental instinct…whatever.

Yes, and was i not breathing, were my bowels not my body constantly feeding and acting and defending itself and repairing itself, even if my energies sufficed so that none of these processes registered consciously…and during that time did not my mind wonder, wanting stimulation?

Have you thought any of this through?

This is because for you all opininos must have a self-interest, and you cannot imagine an opinion seeking to detach itself from this. this is why you asume that the opinion holder has an immediate benefit form the opinion, that it does not represent an honest assessment and a challenge he too must deal with, but that it immediately gratifies him…as do all your opinions.

There you go.
And could this motive be clarity?

Can you imagine someone, other than yourself, who’s need to see, before he dies, overpowers all other needs, to the point that he refuses to close his eyes, no matter how unflattering and disturbing what he perceives is?

Yes, a personal paradise that denies all historical and natural contexts. I know…you are part of a majority.

were you breathing? was your heart beating, is your body defending itself agaisnt viruses, bacteria, damage…or do automated functions that serve needs not count?
Have you thought this through?

Oh shit…we’re off to post-modern New Age spirituality.

I guess the mantra “Out of thought, out of mind” applies.

Obviously not all are affected to the same degree by the same needs, and some need less…yet they all need.

Power is not omnipotence, it is a degree of weakness, just as knowledge in not omniscience it is a degree of ignorance.

Quietude represents the mind’s capacity to cope, it’s efficiency in determining what are actual and what fabricated needs (desires) and coming to terms with its own state of need.

Jesus Christ, you sound like you invented minimalism…my signature states “Live Lightly”…but I know, unlike you, that even floating there my life dependence on constantly feeding the necessities it needs to stay aware of this water.

When you grow beyond your naivite, and you place clarity above your comfort, let me know…as comfort is easy for one as me, who requires so little…I live those moments daily…I work 3 days a week…and the rest of the time when I am not reading and spending time with my son, I sit on my balcony, enjoying…thinking, writing…listening - what is difficult is seeing, wanting to see, to peer into the void…wanting to do more than sit there and cast my life into idleness and happenstance.

Escapism is easy…

I guess a non-generalization is not forthcoming. Am I surprised?

Why don’t you describe the difference between desire and need, and then tell me how I lump them all together, because so far all you’ve done is imply it.

So you are saying that I am overdoing it, in accordance to your tastes or your comfort levels or your understanding?

Explain to me what an appropriate level of generalization is.
Is it one where nobody gets hurt or insulted?

Again no explanation…only an assertion…a drive-by declaration.

My position is that most, especially most modern day ideals, imply a nihilistic state, if one follows the reasoning through, even if on the surface they offer a ‘positive’ face, a smile, a hope.
Take the concept of paradise, for example…and think about it.

Now apply this to your own positions.

I was talking about the metaphysical seed of schizophrenia not the clinical definition or its manifestation into a full blown illness.

I consider schizophrenic anyone who thinks God, or his dead mother, is speaking to him, or the one who thinks his consciousness resides outside his brain. socially functional, logical in every other way…and totally bonkers.

Very good, and one avoids because of what, or does one avoid just for the hell of it?

Do you people ever think your own ideas through?
Why does the fight/flight mechanism evolve?

So you don’t avoid because these others bother you and you need peace, or they threaten you or bore you or tire you, you just avoid for the hell of it.

You don’t avoid because you need quiet, or peace, or silence, or safety or time alone…you just do it like that.
Do you ever ask yourself why you do certain things, are you self-aware on any level or is preserving the idea that you are happy your first NEED?

Why do you asume that a need is immediately connected to a life threatening situation?


I need sex, yet a Catholic priest can survive without sex…well except when he rapes little boys. Then his need overpowers him, no matter how much he’s tried to deny it.